.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
No.
The theory of Abiogenesis is defined as "living organisms (that) can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter". It is the idea that life arose naturally - by itself - from chemical compounds. The 'artificial life' breakthrough recently announced by scientists was not abiogenesis but rather was a genome synthesized. They haven't even created a microbe yet - it was only the genome. Their work did not support special creation or abiogenesis but instead supported creation because 100% of their work represented design.
There was nothing new that they created - they synthesized already existing designs found in nature: the genetic code, the DNA structure, even the DNA was pre-existent. There were some 50 scientists working on this for some 15 years. It took much thought, it took foresight, they used tools, they had meetings and discussed what they should do.
Taking this into consideration, this should inspire even more awe of our Creator. It is no wonder why David said this to God:
"Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous -- and how well I know it." - Psalm 139:14 (New Living Translation)
Science, with even the best labs and equipment cannot replicate on purpose what they claim happened by shear accident. But even if scientists were able to someday create life from inanimate matter, this still wouldn't prove that living organisms arose from inanimate matter on their own on our planet long ago.
This is reminiscent of a cartoon that showed scientists approaching God to say they no longer needed Him as they had created life. God says, "Show me." The scientist begins playing with dirt. "No, No.", God says. "Make your own dirt."
For more see:
Should abiogenesis be regarded as fact when scientists have not even created life from inorganic matter? (Y/A)
Could life have occurred spontaneously?
Man-made life forms? (JWQ&A)
The theory of Abiogenesis is defined as "living organisms (that) can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter". It is the idea that life arose naturally - by itself - from chemical compounds. The 'artificial life' breakthrough recently announced by scientists was not abiogenesis but rather was a genome synthesized. They haven't even created a microbe yet - it was only the genome. Their work did not support special creation or abiogenesis but instead supported creation because 100% of their work represented design.
There was nothing new that they created - they synthesized already existing designs found in nature: the genetic code, the DNA structure, even the DNA was pre-existent. There were some 50 scientists working on this for some 15 years. It took much thought, it took foresight, they used tools, they had meetings and discussed what they should do.
Taking this into consideration, this should inspire even more awe of our Creator. It is no wonder why David said this to God:
"Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous -- and how well I know it." - Psalm 139:14 (New Living Translation)
Science, with even the best labs and equipment cannot replicate on purpose what they claim happened by shear accident. But even if scientists were able to someday create life from inanimate matter, this still wouldn't prove that living organisms arose from inanimate matter on their own on our planet long ago.
This is reminiscent of a cartoon that showed scientists approaching God to say they no longer needed Him as they had created life. God says, "Show me." The scientist begins playing with dirt. "No, No.", God says. "Make your own dirt."
For more see:
Should abiogenesis be regarded as fact when scientists have not even created life from inorganic matter? (Y/A)
Could life have occurred spontaneously?
Man-made life forms? (JWQ&A)
